DNA testing of dogs (FOI)

​Request

Given that recent studies have shown that visual identification of Pit Bulls is poor compared to DNA testing, can you tell me what DNA testing was carried out on recent dogs impounded in Jersey as Pit-Bull types, and the results?

Studies have shown that one in five dogs genetically identified with pit bull heritage breeds were missed by all shelter staff at the time of the study. In one study, one in three dogs lacking DNA evidence for pit bull heritage breeds were labelled pit bull-type dogs by at least one shelter staff member. Other studies concluded that even trained veterinarian staff overestimated their ability to correctly identify breeds visually.

Understanding how a dog's appearance is determined by its DNA can also help explain why a DNA test is better than visual breed identification. Visual identification is based upon the observation of a handful of variable breed-associated physical traits, such as coat colour, body size, skull shape and whether the ears or erect or floppy.

These physical traits are found in many different breeds and are controlled by approximately 50 of the roughly 20,000 genes that create a dog. Sometimes, a breed may exhibit a certain physical trait because all the members in the breed have exactly the same version of the gene that encodes the trait.

If DNA testing has not been carried out, despite scientific evidence that it is significantly more reliable than visual identification, can the Minister responsible explain why?

Response

Schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise (Import and Export Control) (Jersey) Order 2006 lists goods for which licence to import or export is required. Paragraph 3 of that Schedule 1 states:

3. Any dog of –

    (a) the type commonly known as –

          (i) the Dogo Argentino,

          (ii) the Fila Braziliera,

          (iii) the Japanese Tosa (or Tosa), or

          (iv) the Pit Bull Terrier; or

    (b) any other type which appears to have been bred for fighting.

The legislation can be found at the following link:

Customs and Excise (Import and Export Control) (Jersey) Order 2006

Any dispute as to whether this paragraph applies to a particular dog is decided by the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate will decide any case based on the evidence presented to the court. The choice of what evidence to present to the court is a matter for the parties to the dispute. The only recent case heard in the Magistrate’s Court was that of ‘Mr Bronx’ and our records show that neither expert chose to introduce DNA.

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies to information held in records held by a scheduled public authority at the time of receipt of the request. We do not hold any records and therefore do not have any response relating to the question of whether a Minister can explain why DNA testing has not been carried out.